6 Petitioners cited no authority for this request, and no Arkansas rule of procedure provides for the transfer of a motion from an appellate court to the trial court. Respondent tendered a belated response to Petitioners’ motion on December 6, 2017. Respondent (1) disputed Petitioners’ status as prevailing parties; (2) noted that Petitioners’ fee motion was unsupported by any evidence; and (3) argued that Petitioners’ fee request was excessive and unreasonable. Resp. Opp. to Appellees’ Fee Mot., Ark. S. Ct., No. CV-15-988 (Dec. 6, 2016). Respondent also argued that Petitioners’ request to transfer their fee motion to the trial court should be denied because only the Arkansas Supreme Court may award appellate attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. Id. Petitioners tendered a reply on December 8, 2017. Petitioners took the position that “it is unclear whether Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54 applies to [Petitioners’] motion for appellate fees and expenses in [the Arkansas Supreme] Court.” Supp. App. 12. Petitioners argued that if “Rule 54 does not apply . . . there is no governing procedure” for attorney’s fee motions before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Supp. App. 13. Petitioners further asserted that “[w]here . . . the appellate mandate remands for further proceedings and entry of a new final judgment, the [trial] court should award appellate fees after entry of that judgment.” Supp. App. 15. Petitioners argued that Race v. National Cashflow